> On May 21, 2019, at 6:10 PM, MRob wrote:
>
> If smtpd_recipient_limit=1 is not bad practice I like to hear opinions about
> this. It can also help if you try to do per-user spam filtering during the
> SMTP transaction.
It remains a terrible (RFC-violating) idea, leading to excessive
delivery
On 2019-05-21 21:47, @lbutlr wrote:
On 21 May 2019, at 15:36, MRob wrote:
Privacy problem is addressed with smtpd_recipient_limit=1 but thats
not very feasible.
Are you sure?
I think even the big mailing-list services send individual messages
now-a-days.
I thought I remember strong opinio
On 21 May 2019, at 15:36, MRob wrote:
> Privacy problem is addressed with smtpd_recipient_limit=1 but thats not very
> feasible.
Are you sure?
I think even the big mailing-list services send individual messages now-a-days.
--
Good old Dame Fortune. You can _depend_ on her.
On 2019-05-21 20:22, Wietse Venema wrote:
MRob:
For some time it is possible to make postfix virtual tell a LDA who is
the original recipient, add x-original-to header. But not LMTP. This
create problems in final delivery, one example is autoreply vacation
program cannot check if message was add
On 2019-05-21 18:42, MRob wrote:
For some time it is possible to make postfix virtual tell a LDA who is
the original recipient, add x-original-to header. But not LMTP. This
create problems in final delivery, one example is autoreply vacation
program cannot check if message was addressed directly
On 21 May 2019, at 15:07, @lbutlr wrote:
> May 21 14:52:32 mail postfix/local[63216]: 457nyS31Y4zdrvK:
> to=, orig_to=, relay=local,
> delay=0.39, delays=0.34/0.01/0/0.04, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to
> command: /usr/local/bin/procmail -t -a $EXTENSION)
>
> May 21 14:53:16 mail postfix
I may have asked this in the past, but ion so it's been longe enough I don't
remember and can't find it my mail archives.
Is there some way to modify what is logged from postfix/local and postfix/pipe
so that the "status=sent" lines include the from address as well as the to
address?
May 21 14
MRob:
> For some time it is possible to make postfix virtual tell a LDA who is
> the original recipient, add x-original-to header. But not LMTP. This
> create problems in final delivery, one example is autoreply vacation
> program cannot check if message was addressed directly to this user or
>
For some time it is possible to make postfix virtual tell a LDA who is
the original recipient, add x-original-to header. But not LMTP. This
create problems in final delivery, one example is autoreply vacation
program cannot check if message was addressed directly to this user or
not, so many au
PGNet Dev:
> > That should be safe, because the OK here cannot affect how a recipient
> > will be evaluated.
>
> Do you have any reasonable advice as to a better approach to share?
Well you can drop the initial .* and you may want to end the pattern
in '$' as in
/\.outbound\.protection\.outl
That should be safe, because the OK here cannot affect how a recipient
will be evaluated.
Do you have any reasonable advice as to a better approach to share?
PGNet Dev:
> currently, my config does include
>
> smtpd_helo_required = yes
> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks
> check_helo_access pcre:${config_directory}/helo_access.pcre
> reject_invalid_helo_hostname
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
> permit
>
> is adding
currently, my config does include
smtpd_helo_required = yes
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
check_helo_access pcre:${config_directory}/helo_access.pcre
reject_invalid_helo_hostname
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
permit
is adding to head of helo_access.pcre
/.*\.out
I run postfix 3.4.5.
I typically reject on unknown reverse hostname; it's a policy I'm comfortable
with.
For a number of correspondents that use outlook.com for outbound, I
occasionally see failures crop up for the same sender, then just
'automagically' resolve.
E.g., for a single sender, her
On 21 May 2019, at 8:46, post...@io-labs.com wrote:
Oh, ok. So it is reassuring in a way, means that feature is there.
I might have overlooked but i found no information in documentations
about how to setup the SNI support. Is it also a part that is not yet
updated?
There is information in
post...@io-labs.com:
> Oh, ok. So it is reassuring in a way, means that feature is there.
> I might have overlooked but i found no information in documentations
> about how to setup the SNI support. Is it also a part that is not
> yet updated?
> Thanks.
Possible search strategy: look for 'sni' in
Wietse Venema wrote ..
> Fred Barachant:
> > Hi.
> >
> > SNI support for smtp server and client is said to be there, from
> > what i read in release notes from 3.4.0. (
> > http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.4.0.html ) However,
> > docs still say that it is not done not planned (
> >
17 matches
Mail list logo
